It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Men's-rights activists seek right to decline fatherhood in event of unplanned pregnancy

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:08 PM
But when Peter Foy went to court and tried to assert his rights as a biological father, the court essentially said, “This DNA stuff… not so important.” The emotional relationship the maternal aunt may have established with the child trumped DNA. The court did grant Peter visitation rights but left the details up to the aunt. Good luck with that, Peter.

The judge, in ruling against Peter Foy’s custody application, made the following observations:

1.) Peter had an unsteady employment history and his current job sometimes required long hours that might keep him away from his daughter. Peter was slammed for not working hard enough and for working too hard.

2.) Peter was criticized for appearing on the Dr. Phil show. But Aunt Deborah was also on the Dr. Phil show and the judge didn’t seem to mind that. We have evidently reached the point where judges don’t feel the need to conceal or explain obvious bias.

3.) Peter was criticized for having an estranged relationship with his daughter. But the difficulties between Peter and Kate may have been caused by the separation imposed on them by a restraining order issued by the court. The judge and the aunt may have contributed to the alienation but Peter took the blame.

4.) Peter’s friends from his home in New Mexico appeared at the New Jersey custody trial to testify on Peter’s behalf. The judge wrote that they probably wanted a free trip to the Northeast. Really, that’s what he wrote. It seems to us that Peter did not get a thoughtful judicial hearing which means his daughter did not receive the consideration to which she was also entitled.

We have no doubt about this: Peter Foy is a loving and fit father. A loving and fit mother would never have lost custody of her child to the child’s uncle.(THIS is the part i was talking about)

Good luck to Peter Foy in his ongoing battle to have a meaningful relationship with his daughter.

sorry to have copyed so much i just wanted my earlyer post to make a bit more sense i got this from the following page and all credit is given to them and whatnot

pretty sure its talking abotu the same case but i could be wrong

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:12 PM
This is beyond redicules
It takes two too tango and any guy whos knocks someone up should have to pay child support!
its easy to say woman can just give the child up for adorbtion or have it aborted but its not a simple desision, its someones life.
Woman are stuck with children where as the men can just walk away

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:16 PM
Except when sex is involved, no sane man would give anyone the power over him that a woman gains when he fathers a child out of wedlock.

It's time men wised up and started exercising some responsibility in the reproductive area.

This guy has no one to blame, but himself.

He should have thought about the consequences before he got intimate.

Personal responsibility is the only solution to the "unfair" position men find themselves in relative to the law.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:20 PM

Originally posted by Hefficide

Originally posted by badgerprints
This statement I agree with wholeheartedly.

As for the line about no life....we differ on that completely. I still see abortion as taking a life.

I also agree that abortion is taking a life. I don't believe in abortion, though I support a womans right to choose. What I meant is that if a woman aborts then it does not result in the birth of a child that will require financial support.

If a woman aborts then it results in the death of a child who would have had a chance to grow up, marry then raise and support their own family.

Once again a woman gets the right to kill the unborn child but the father doesn't have a say. Then the father has no say in paying either.

If mother gets the right to deny the child a life and the father a child then the father should have the right of deciding if he wants to be a parent as well.

I know what I'm saying here.
I'm paying for child support for a child that isn't mine but I raised as my own. She was taken from me at the age of 5 and I haven't seen her since but I still make sure she is taken care of through the attorney generals office and legal means. I still pay child support and insurance.
I could go down and get free of it and sign away what's left of my rights as a parent but I don't.
I have a stake in this issue, not just an opinion. I do what I do because my little girl needs to be taken care of.

Having said all of that, I can't support unfettered freedom by mothers to kill their children on a whim but demand lifelong commitments from the fathers who have no say in the matter. The whole thing is sick and twisted.

If mothers have a choice then fathers should too.

edit on 16-9-2010 by badgerprints because: added to a sentence for clarification......"grow up, marry then"

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by badgerprints

I can totally relate. My first wife and I had a son. She left me for another man when my son was an infant and the two of them married. I only saw my son one time after they married, even though I paid child support for over ten years. I literally bankrupted myself fighting for my visitation rights.

I'd understand more if I were a monster or had done something horrible. But I wasn't and I didn't. Her strategy was simple. She moved out of state and then kept up the argument that she feared that I was capable of violence. Not that I had been violent... Merely that she feared I could be. And that was enough to keep the courts confused and involved.

Unlike you, I did sign that piece of paper. After over a decade of fighting. And I have regretted it every since. At the time I thought that taking away the support was my last and best tactic. It wasn't.

There's a happy ending, in a way. Now that he is twenty years old, I have met my son and speak to him on occasion, on Facebook. He doesn't know I am his father, and believes his step father is his biological father. He's been told, by other members of his family, that I am an old family friend. That is the deal I struck for the "right" to interact with my child.

So I know and understand your pain very vividly.

My experiences as discussed here are part of why I feel the way I do. It was never about money to me, it was always about my son. And that is how it should be.

Regarding the concept that women can abort and men have no say.... Well that's a topic for an entirely different thread.

*ETA* If this all seems somewhat contrary and irrational, I don't mind. To be honest half the time I can't make sense of it either. Feelings are like that sometimes - easily felt but impossible to explain.

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/16/10 by Hefficide because: second edit for grammatical errors

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:12 PM
Five pages and no one cares to discuss the legal aspects of this case? The constitutional implications? I'm surprised and disappointed with my favorite site. To deny ignorance is to also to embrace reason. If we won't ever examine the underlying "rights" that are (or are not) being infringed here, why so much hoo-haw about The Constitution here on ats? Is that just where your gun rights are concerned, people? Come on. You can do better than endlessly espousing your emotional opinions and tossing around ad hominem attacks. Let's have a real discussion of the underlying principles, how they do or do not apply, etc.

Or not. You all seem to be having such fun, right?

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:19 PM
reply to post by joechip

I'd be more than happy to discuss the actual case and all the laws that go along with it if you can point me to an actual court decision on it. The site you linked to does a great job of backing Peter Foy up, but does not do so from an unbiased standpoint and it's impossible to know what the truth of the matter is without the actual facts as presented in court. You can't get an unbiased discussion about the law and parental rights when basing it off a biased website. It's impossible.

As for the thread, this is a highly emotional issue for many people but I've seen good points from both sides on why men should or should not be able to decline their responsibilities as a father. You wanted a decent discussion and from where I'm sitting you're getting one. Yeah some ad hominem attacks have happened, it's the internet, but overall the posts haven't just been everyone in attack mode.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 08:31 PM
reply to post by Jenna

okay then, go back to page 3 read my post there, 2nd from the top, quoting the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, and my exposition on its applicability to the issue at hand. Refute it. That is, to my mind, the underlying issue; does Roe v. Wade, or the privacy argument that the Justice's made, based on Constitutional Amendments, most notably the 9th, apply to single, unmarried men, as well?. And are the current coercive child support laws in violation of fundamental rights? I believe so, and I've bothered to make a reasoned argument in favor of my position. If you disagree, do so in a logical manner, using the principles of law, and Constitutional rights to back up your argument. That's what I'm talking about, and that's not happening.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 09:14 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The entire State apparatus is designed to loot as much money from men as possible.

aint that the damn truth !!!
It's never fair in a court of law
when it comes to the father.
And women know this
and milk it for everything
they can.

what an injustice !!!

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:15 PM
So women are the innocents in all this...please..
...a woman also has the knowledge of birth control that we men have. If she knows that a man refuses to use protection, she also has the right refuse to open her legs but if she just needs her booty call she also could use birth control...but a lot of you are simply saying it is the mens's fault for all this. If a man has no say in whether or not a woman can have an abortion or not...then he should also have the right to say no to a baby he does not want. That means giving up all rights as a parent...meaning no support.

Get out of the stone ages people...women are not as weak as you all would like to think...and are definitely not victims here. Men who don't want kids should use protection or abstain from sex....and so should women.

I know men know the possible outcomes of unprotected sex and still have it...but guess what.SO DO WOMEN or so I thought...some of you make it sound like the woman is naive ...Tell me how women are not able to realize the ramifications of their decisions and maybe my tune will change.

I am for the new law if it should come...I guess I am a scumbag...

edit on 16-9-2010 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2010 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2010 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-9-2010 by kerazeesicko because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:27 PM
reply to post by kerazeesicko

It will never come nonetheless, for the reality of paternity is but a swab to tell, and money is always an issue for governments. And the birth control pill works for only 50%, the other 50% come off for health reasons, during usage, can cause stroke like symptoms and severe migraines for some, no matter what weaker one they use. It doesnt matter who is consenting to sex, the outcome is a baby, and both parents have responsibilities.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:29 PM
These "men" arent men.

EVERY man knows that "recreation" can turn to procreation. Facts.

If the kid turns out NOT to be his, he should have the option.

In the end, the kid gets screwed the worst. Damn shame about our society that this is even having to be discussed.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:29 PM
Personally, if you don't want an unplanned pregnancy, I say... Don't have sex.

But, legally, it doesn't make sense for a female's reproductive rights to be above the male's reproductive rights. If a female can choose to abort, then a male should be able to choose to "abort" their fatherhood.

Given that both were consenting parties to sex, of course.

Having said that, people need to grow up and take care of the life they've created.

Orgasms: fun -- begets -- Children: PRICELESS.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:34 PM
reply to post by TarzanBeta

Abortion is an extreme measure and has nothing to do with reality of being a parent to a living breathing child. Once kid is there, there is both a mother and a father, its a nature reality check. These issues are apples and oranges!

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Yes, men should be careful. BUT if i was a woman and there may be a chance that i may have human being growing inside my body, if i had sex with a man, you bet i am going to be on the pill, because men are irresponsible.
2 to tango here.
Ladies keep your pants on. Guys the same. but in the end the female is the one carrying a child, they should be the most responsible about their own bodies and bringing new ppl into this world.
doesn't get much simpler than that.

edit on 16-9-2010 by Optix because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:38 PM

Originally posted by Jenna

Before there is a heartbeat, I don't consider it murder. And yes, in my mind an abortion is preferable to 9 months of being abused and tortured in the womb. I perhaps should have made it clear to begin with, but just for future reference should anyone try to accuse me of anything I do not under any circumstances support abortion after there is a heartbeat.

Well week 3 is when the cardiovascular system is developed. Doesnt give women a whole lot of time to kill it according to your logic. What about people in hospitals that have machines pump their blood? Are they no longer human? Their rights now void? Alive is alive, no matter how you want to twist it. The embryo needs nutrients to survive and its cells replicate just like yours and mine do. Its alive and just because it hasn't developed its heart YET doesn't mean its life is worthless.

If you had any idea how many children are left to rot in foster care because no one wants to adopt them you wouldn't be advocating that as an alternative.

Um, yes, I DO prefer the alternative. I would much rather be alive than dead. Don't speak for me.

I see it every day. No one wants the older kids who might have behavioral/mental issues because of what their parents did or didn't do. They want the babies more often than not.

Uh, this proves my point. Women don't need to abort their inconvenient pregnancies as there are plenty of willing people to adopt newborns.

Blood tests each week should be done to enforce this.

Invasion of privacy. Perhaps we should do weekly sperm counts on men to see if they're capable of creating children.

How is it an invasion of privacy? My wife had blood tests regularly, as many do, for the overall health of the baby during pregnancy and she did not feel her privacy was invaded. Many I think will also agree.

Even so, once women decide to have sex and a human being results, dont be surprised if some of your rights are set aside for the baby. Mens rights are set aside for babies all the time and sometimes the mother rights override the fathers in a lot cases. Lets be realistic, shall we?

When people are weak or unable to assert their rights as human beings (ie babies) it is the duty and honor for others to come to their defense.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:42 PM

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by TarzanBeta

Abortion is an extreme measure and has nothing to do with reality of being a parent to a living breathing child. Once kid is there, there is both a mother and a father, its a nature reality check. These issues are apples and oranges!

Actually, abortion has everything to do with the reality of being a parent to a living breathing child.

It's the choice to not only not be the parent, but also to choose for the child to have no life and no parents.

The kid has parents the second the sperm and egg meet... unless... "Do you believe in magic?"

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:49 PM
What we really should have - - as in LAW is: MANDATORY Paternity test for EVERY child born.

"You Play - You Pay"

And it takes TWO. Pregnancy entrapment???? Wake up to reality and wear a Damn condemn or two.l

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:56 PM
reply to post by TarzanBeta

Abortion is something many people do not believe in, or only under certain cirucumstances. And irregardless of whether someone aborts, or someone miscarriages, or whatever someones intention, the reality is, when a living child is born it has two dna contributors, mommy and daddy. No one is off the hook, and the ones that think they are have a lot to answer for unless they are extremely dysfunctional/ill/traumatized permanently.

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by gwydionblack

I do agree that abortion should be decided by both parents. I agree with that fully. However, I do not agree that a man has the right to decide if he wants financial responsibility. The child was made by two not one. And to the OP, what do you think would happen if all of these men got to choose if they want to pay or not? NOBODY would be paying. Is this a joke?
Judge: "Mr. condomless, you will be paying $400 a month in child support for your son...or you can choose not to."
Mr condomless: "I choose not to...but thanks anyways"

You can say that we need to discuss the law all you want but what it boils down to is that people...and that means men and women need to take care of their responsibilities. Not all people do, but that is where the law comes in.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in